Learned a new latin phrase: mens rea


warrior_won
#61
Quote: Originally Posted by gopherView Post

``more than 5000 cases before the courts in this country shows that the courts are not adverse to you giving it your best shot.``


The courts are controlled by right wing activist judges who let those crooked cops go off scot free just like they did with racist criminal punk Mark Fuhrmann.

Then, when people are finally compensated for what they suffer at the hands of those racist punks, it is the taxpayers who foot the bill while the police criminals laugh and celebrate.

That's not true. I don't know the precise ratio of acquitted police officers versus acquitted common criminals (I don't know of any better descriptor for those accused of crime but lack credibility commonly ascribed to those in positions of authority) but I have seen no evidence to support your claim.
 
warrior_won
#62
Quote: Originally Posted by NiflmirView Post

Before I posted the thread was moving in a direction which focused on intent as mens rea, in fact using them almost synonymously, it was merely a warning not to think of them as synonymous that I orginally posted.

I have to take some of the blame for that, as I am personally focused on satisfying the fault element with intent. In my case, I'm looking at motive as the basis for forming intent.

Motive, as we all know, can be loosely defined as having a "desired outcome". If a person achieves that desired outcome through criminal means, then it can be established that the person acted with deliberate intent. Thus satisfying the "guilty mind" element.

Quote: Originally Posted by NiflmirView Post


The summary you give of mens rea above is fairly good. But the second condition is anything but clear, especially the subjective element. Merely because a judge or jury might have known that a certain action would occur does not mean most reasonable persons would have known, and trial judges must weigh such a consideration.

That's why there's the assumption that the accused is of average intelligence and capable of understanding the concept of cause and effect. If an accused person is not capable of understanding cause and effect, then it could be argued that the accused is not criminally responsible. Generally it would be the defense attorney who would raise the issue of criminal responsibility, and the accused would be sent for a psychiatric assessment to determine if he/she understood the nature of his/her crimes and/or whether he/she was fit to stand trial.
Last edited by warrior_won; Dec 14th, 2007 at 03:23 PM..
 
MikeyDB
#63
"Merely because a judge or jury might have known that a certain action would occur does not mean most reasonable persons would have known, and trial judges must weigh such a consideration."

With all due respect that's a line of double-speak.

The recent exposure of Brian Mulroney as conduit for funds to his personal advantage while an officer of government....a "reasonable man" would, having an appreciation for the most likely undergirding sentiment with respect to pay-offs bribes and funds recieved in a highly questionable manner like wads of cash...and "reason" doesn't seem to mean a damn thing when you've got lots of money....

"What any reasonable man may think...." is predicated on the notion that reason is neutral and under law it isn't.
 

Similar Threads

2
Wimbledon Final Poll MENs
by kale7334 | Jul 9th, 2006
6
what random gaelic phrase are you?
by peapod | Oct 24th, 2004
no new posts